Image: Twitter/ArminNavabi
She was standing on top of a utilities box, quietly waiving her white headscarf hanging from a stick during the busiest time of the day on the busiest street of Tehran, the Enghelab — or “Revolution” — Street. The stance of this courageous woman conveyed only one message: “I protest against the mandatory hijab [headscarf] by not wearing it in public!”
The bravery of the “Girl of Enghelab Street,” as she became known, was no small matter, because it is illegal and a crime under Iranian laws for women to appear without adhering to dress codes as part of Islamic hijab in public. According to explicit language of the Islamic Penal Code women who fail to wear hijab in public will be imprisoned or fined. The protest of the “Girl of Enghelab Street” was in fact part of the online campaign against the mandatory hijab called the “White Wednesday” that also coincided with the outburst of a widespread protest in Iran almost one month ago with its roots in devastating economic hardship on the Iranians. The systemic arrests and poor treatment of the detainees who openly and peacefully protested, including the “Girl of Enghelab Street,” once again has raised serious concerns regarding fundamental rights to freedoms of speech and assembly in Iran.
The explicit and unequivocal provisions of the Iranian Constitution require that any rights and freedoms of women must be in full compliance with “Islamic laws and principles.” This justifies the imposition of mandatory hijab. Hijab, an Arabic word that has become a generic term for the proper Islamic dress code for women, which also is a manifestation for chastity, dignity, and modesty for women. In the absence of any definition of what constitutes “Islamic hijab,” the rules surrounding its implementation are unpredictable and vague, and are heavily influenced by the political atmosphere. This also is fueled by the government’s expectations of women who are not seen as individuals holding rights and freedoms; rather women’s role is defined according to religious-based rules and expectations on chastity and modesty that moves beyond mere covering hair and body. This results in the imposition of a wide range of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of women as they step out of their homes, preventing them from making decisions on how to appear and act in public.
For example, the extent of implementing hijab has been left to the sole discretion of the disciplinary forces on the ground that determine whether or not she has a proper hijab or is acting appropriately as a Muslim woman. Public protests by women against these restrictions are not considered consistent with “Islamic principles and government’s fundamental pillars.”
It is important to know that challenging the mandatory hijab has a long history that goes back to the early days after the new government of the Islamic Republic (IR) was established in 1979. When the new government forced women to wear hijab in public this mandate was faced by a large women’s march that rejected mandatory hijab. One day before International Women’s Day, Āyatullāh Khumiynī, the first and founding Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, referred to unveiled women in his speech as “naked.” He added, “working at offices is not forbidden for women, but they must wear Islamic hijab.”
Almost forty years later, the protest of “Girl of Enghelab Street” and her arrest is of significance because on one hand she is practicing her right to freedom of speech, expression, and thought against the mandatory hijab as a citizen. Her protest, on the other hand, even though completely peaceful in action, clearly violates national laws on hijab. The Constitution of the IRI has no provisions that guarantee “freedom of speech” or “freedom of expression” for its citizens. Only newspapers have limited and conditional rights to “freedom of speech” as long as they do not violate Islamic principles and laws. According to Article 23 of the Constitution “no one should be criticized for holding mere opinion,” which implies freedom of thought. But since there are no provisions that guarantee freedom of expression or speech, Article 23 does not necessarily protect acts of expression inspired by someone’s opinion. Other provisions of the constitution allow a conditional right to assembly. Article 26 reads:
“Parties, societies, political or professional associations, Islamic or recognized religious minority groups are free only as long as they do not violate principles of independence, freedom, national unity, Islamic criteria, and foundations of Islamic Republic. No one may be banned from participating in the aforementioned groups, or be compelled to participate in them.”
Article 27 continues,
“The formation of public gatherings and marches may be freely held, without carrying fire arms and only if they are not against the fundamental principles of Islam.”
And, of course, any expression that the regime does not like or approve can be seen “against the fundamental principles of Islam or principles of government” and ultimately banned.
The absence of constitutional protection for the freedoms of speech and expression, with only limited rights to assembly as long as it does not violate the IR principles and Islamic laws, are in effect no real protection at all. When women’s rights and freedoms are decided in Iran only according to “Islamic criteria,” that in practice are restrictive and discriminatory against women, any protest or expression to challenge them are per se found un-Islamic and “influenced by western views.” The Judiciary criminalizes all legitimate and peaceful activities of women’s rights defenders who challenge discriminatory laws against women, making it almost impossible for women to voice their opinion and request change.
Iranian chief prosecutor Muḥammad Ja‘far Muntaẓirī put this quite clearly when he said that the women protesting hijab are “childish” and are violating religious and domestic laws. He continued that they act of ignorance and that they are influenced by outside forces. Even though these widespread protests were not a women’s rights movement at the beginning, more and more women continued re-creating the protest of “Girl of Enghelab Street.” Today the protest for women turned into an open resistance movement against compulsory hijab.
Dr. Delaram Farzaneh is a Visiting Fellow of the Freedom Project at Wellesley College since September 2017. She has recently published her first book titled “Judgeships in Iran: Step Down, You are a Woman - A Legal Analysis of International Human Rights.”